If necessary, you can apply to the court, but generally it is not necessary.

Generally speaking, after the debtor repays the loan, he will ask for the IOU back, or ask the creditor to issue a receipt indicating that the debtor has repaid the loan. The particularity of this case is that the plaintiff sued with an original IOU, but the defendant claimed that the loan in dispute had been repaid and provided the corresponding repayment certificate. Although the plaintiff admitted that it had received the repayment, it claimed that the loan was repaid. It was used to repay another loan, not the loan disputed in this case. At this time, how to allocate the burden of proof and how to identify the transfer of the burden of proof directly determines the outcome of the case.

As for the general rules for the distribution of the burden of proof, the "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" adopts the classification theory of legal elements. This theory divides substantive law norms into rights occurrence norms, rights elimination norms, and rights obstruction norms. The so-called norms for the occurrence of rights refer to the legal requirements that cause the occurrence of rights, the norms for the elimination of rights refer to the legal requirements that lead to the elimination of rights, and the norms for the obstruction of rights refer to the legal requirements that hinder the occurrence of rights. Therefore, the party claiming the existence of rights should bear the burden of proof for the legal facts that the rights exist, and the party claiming the non-existence of rights should bear the burden of proof for the legal facts that eliminate or hinder the rights. Specific to private lending dispute cases, in accordance with Article 196 of the Contract Law (a loan contract is a contract in which the borrower borrows money from the lender and returns the loan and pays interest when due) and Article 210 (a loan contract between natural persons, the (effective when the lender provides the loan), if the plaintiff wants to claim rights, he must bear the burden of proof for the existence of the loan contract and the fact that the loan has been delivered. If the defendant wants to deny the plaintiff's claim, he must bear the burden of proof on the fact that the rights have been extinguished. If the loan has been repaid, the burden of proof shall be borne, or the burden of proof shall be borne for the fact that the rights are obstructed, such as the statute of limitations has expired.

Due to the particularity of private loan cases, IOUs generally have the function of proving the existence of a loan contract and that the loan has been delivered. In this case, the plaintiff’s evidence for claiming rights was an IOU. From this IOU, the following facts can be seen: On January 13, 2010, the defendant Yu issued an IOU to the plaintiff Zhang. Defendant LMM signed the IOU as guarantor. The IOU stated: "Today, I borrow RMB 48,000 from Zhang Moumou due to turnover needs. The loan period is one month until February 12, 2010. The monthly interest is calculated at 2%. The principal and interest will be returned on time when due. Otherwise, the guarantor must unconditionally bear the joint and several liability." Responsibility for repayment (principal and interest) and all costs incurred by the creditor in filing suit in the People's Court (including litigation fees, attorney fees, travel expenses, work delay expenses, etc.)." With this IOU, the plaintiff is able to claim that its rights have arisen, and its burden of proof has been completed at this time. Unless the defendant can provide evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff's rights have been eliminated or hindered, the defendant must bear corresponding liability. Now the defendant has provided a repayment voucher of 62,050 yuan, and the plaintiff himself has admitted that he has received the money. Calculated according to the interest rate stipulated in the loan, it has already exceeded the principal and interest, so the evidence provided can prove that it has paid off the loan, which means that it can prove that the plaintiff's rights have been extinguished. Since the evidence provided by the defendant is sufficient to prove its claim, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff: the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof that his rights still exist. The plaintiff claimed that the RMB 62,050 was not used to repay the loan in dispute in this case, but was used to repay another loan of RMB 50,000. Then, the plaintiff must provide evidence to prove this fact, otherwise the court can only determine that its rights have been extinguished. However, in this case, the plaintiff's evidence was weak: because the plaintiff claimed that the IOU for another 50,000 yuan loan had been returned to the defendant Yu Moumou after the defendant paid off the loan, it could not provide the IOU for the 50,000 yuan loan; as for its provision Some of the credit cards cannot directly prove the existence of the loan; in addition, Lin Lin, a person outside the case, stated that he heard from the plaintiff Zhang that he took out 48,000 yuan of the 50,000 yuan borrowed from him and lent 48,000 yuan to the defendant Yu. However, because the court suspected Lin Lin of perjury, his testimony was not accepted. Since the plaintiff cannot prove the existence of two loans, the plaintiff Zhang Moumou should bear the legal consequences of unfavorable proof.

It is undeniable that assigning the burden of proof to the plaintiff does not rule out the possibility of "accidental injury": in the case of continuous borrowing between the lender and the borrower, generally speaking, after the loan is repaid, The lender will return the IOU to the borrower and will only keep the IOU that the borrower has not repaid. If the debtor is dishonest, he will use the repayment voucher left behind from the previous loan to argue that the current loan has been repaid. And if the lender claims that the so-called repayment is actually just the repayment of the previous loan, but because of the previous An IOU has been returned to the borrower without being able to prove its claim, leading to the legal consequences of losing the case. Therefore, it is not because the defendant has provided evidence that the court can determine the fact that the loan has been repaid. It must also make a judgment based on other circumstances of the case. The reason why this case was determined that the defendant had fulfilled its burden of proof was mainly based on the following judgments:

First, the issue of the repayment amount. In this case, the defendant returned 62,050 yuan, which far exceeded the principal and interest calculated based on the interest rate stated in the IOU. In this regard, the defendant explained that since the principal was cashed out from the credit card, the plaintiff required that the default fines and late payment fees of the credit card should also be borne by the defendant.

This statement is also consistent with the plaintiff's own claim that another loan of 50,000 yuan was cashed out from a credit card. Due to overdue repayment, the credit card penalty and late payment penalty must be paid, so the defendant paid 62,050 yuan before repaying the loan. This is corroborated by the statement of a loan of 50,000 yuan.

Secondly, since the loan has been paid off, why is the IOU not wanted back? Defendant LMM stated that the repayments were all remitted to plaintiff Zhang through bank transfers. Defendant Yu was also outside all the time and did not respond and failed to retrieve the IOU. In addition, it was also out of trust in plaintiff Zhang. This statement is also consistent with the court's investigation: the court once visited defendant Yu's former work unit to learn about it. His work unit stated that defendant Yu owed a lot of loan sharks, and now he did not dare to return to Fenghua, and he did not know where to go. . The court initially contacted the defendant Yu Moumou several times by phone, but he refused to inform him of his specific address and did not come to the court to respond. He believed that someone would cause trouble for him when he arrived in Fenghua and he might be detained. In the end, the court only Ability to announce and serve litigation documents. In addition, the repayment vouchers provided by the defendant to the court were indeed bank remittance orders, transfer orders, etc., which were enough to prove that there was no direct contact between the defendant and the plaintiff Zhang Moumou. Therefore, there is a real possibility that the defendant did not get back the IOU after paying off the loan.

Thirdly, judging from the time of the repayment vouchers, they are all after January 13, 2010, which can also be consistent with the time when the IOU was issued. Because according to the plaintiff, except for the two loans he claimed, there were no other loans between the plaintiff and the defendant after January 13, 2010.

Based on the above reasons, the court finally recognized the fact that the defendant had repaid the loan.